TERMS OF REFERENCE (TOR)

SOUTHEAST ASIA MILLENNIAL CONFERENCE 2020

A. Name of Program

SOUTHEAST ASIA MILLENNIAL CONFERENCE (SMIC) : “Advancing ASEAN

Sustainable Development through Connectivity amid the New Normal”

B. Time & Program Place

Date : Saturday, 21 November 2020

Time : 10.30 – 12.30 WIB / 11.30 – 13.30 MYT
Place : Platform Zoom

C. Background

The world is currently experiencing a serious issue which comes from the coronavirus
or the Covid-19 pandemic. This pandemic causes major disruptions all around the world, in
all aspects of human’s life. Lockdown and social distancing measures have been imposed
in order to curb the number of cases. With the emerge of this pandemic, human life is
carried out with a new living system. Adaptation to the new system is an absolute necessity
in order to continue to carry out normal activities and survive until the pandemic is over.
For the society to achieve a sustainable development and adapt to the so-called “new
normal”, new innovations and ideas must be promoted.

Indonesian Student Association in Malaysia (PPI Malaysia) is a non-profit

organization of Indonesian youths who are currently studying in Malaysia. By raising the
jargon “COLLABORATION, HARMONY, CONTRIBUTION", PPI Malaysia believe that
Indonesian students abroad must be able understand the current global affairs and uphold
Indonesia's identity at the same time.
 Being students in one of the ASEAN countries, PPI Malaysia members get to interact
with other ASEAN students in various activities. Aware of the rapid development in
Southeast Asia, PPI Malaysia believes that our youths should be able to cultivate the best
potential in themselves as the future generation and adapt against all the obstacles that will
be encountered in the future.

Thus, PPI Malaysia will be holding Southeast Asia Millennial Conference 2020:
Advancing ASEAN Sustainable Development through Connectivity amid the New
Normal.” We realized that amid the Covid-19 outbreak and the new normal, connectivity is
a quintessential aspect for boosting the development and achieving the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs).

D. Topics

 The World Towards the Shadow of Recession

The current pandemic has caused an unprecedented decline in the global economy. An
economic recession is believed to be inevitable as the economic fundamentals are weakened
in many countries. Numerous of policies and strategies are prepared despite the uncertain
future of the pandemic. The big question is: How ready are the Southeast Asia countries in
facing the next major economic downturn after the Asian financial crisis? What are the
possible strategies that a country can take to increase economic resilience?

 New Challenges for Small & Micro Enterprises (SME) during The Pandemic

The economy in developing countries, especially in Southeast Asia, are dominated with
Small & Micro Enterprises. As one of the biggest contributors in a country’s GDP, the current
pandemic has caused them to stop their business operation. Closures are definitely affecting
the economy significantly. However, as every cloud has a silver lining, innovations are an
absolute necessity in order for the SMEs to survive. What are the possible strategies for the
government to support the SMEs? How the youths are able to contribute to solve this
problem?
E. Objective
1. To strengthen the ties of ASEAN youth.
2. To improve the understanding between youths of ASEAN on the issues faced by ASEAN

countries.
3. To encourage ASEAN youths to concern and participate in dealing with the issues in ASEAN.
4. To provide a forum for ASEAN youths to express their aspirations and their ideas to

resolve the problems in the ASEAN community.

5. To create a vision that will become a direction for ASEAN youths in the effort to realize a

better ASEAN.
6. To show the existence of ASEAN youths in encountering the challenges of facing ASEAN
development.

F. Guideline for Reviewers

The format of the guide for reviewing articles is in accordance with the GFA MANUSCRIPT
TEMPLATE FOR SMIC CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS 2020 attachment, after point
H.

G. The duties of the Peer Reviewers

1. Toward Authors :
a) Providing written , unbiased, constructive feedback in a timely manner on the
scholarly merits and the scientific value of the work, together with the documented
basis for the reviewer’s opinion, Indicating whether the writing is clear, concise, and
relevant and rating the work’s composition, scientific accuracy, originality, and
interest to the journal’s readers.
b) Avoiding personal comments or criticism.
c) Maintaining the confidentiality of the review process: not sharing, discussing
with third parties, or disclosing information from the reviewed paper.
2. Toward Publication Division

a) Ensuring that the methods and analysis are adequately detailed to allow the reader to
judge the scientific merit of the study design and be able to replicate the study.
b) Ensuring that the article cities all relevant work by other scientists.
c) Notifying the publication division immediately if unable to review in a timely manner
and, if able, providing the names of alternative reviewers.
d) Alerting the publication division about any potential personal, financial or
perceived conflict of interest and declining to review when a conflict exists.

e) Complying with the editor’s written instructions on the journal’s expectations for
the scope, content, and quality of the review.
f) Providing a thoughtful, fair, constructive, and informative critique of the
submitted work, which may include supplementary material provided to the
journal by the author.
g) Refraining from direct author contact.
h) Noting any ethical concerns, such as any violation of accepted norms of ethical
treatment of animal or human subjects or substantial similarity between the
reviewed manuscript and any published paper or any manuscript concurrently
submitted to another journal that may be known to the reviewer.

H. Rundown for Reviewers

1) In the very beginning, the publication divition will choose the papers and give it to
to the reviewers according to the area of expertise, by going through the submitted
abstracts.
2) In the process of review, there will be multiple read-throughs. The process will start
with the first read-through.
3) In the first read-through, the reviewers will keep a pen and paper handy when skim-
reading. They will try to bear in mind the following questions:
 What is the main question addressed by the research? Is it relevant and
interesting?
 How original is the topic? What does it add to the subject area compared with
other published material?
  Is the paper well written? Is the text clear and easy to read?

 Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented?
Do they address the main question posed?
 If the author is disagreeing significantly with the current academic consensus, do
they have a substantial case? If not, what would be required to make their case
credible?
 If the paper includes tables or figures, what do they add to the paper? Do they
aid understanding or are they superfluous?
4) Reviewers must try to spot the major flaws in the paper. Flaws in information is very
crucial. Reviewers should look for information flaw keeping the following things in
notice:
a. Insufficient data.
b. Statistically non-significant variations.
c. Unclear data tables.
d. Contradictory data that either are not self-consistent or disagree with
the conclusions.
e. Confirmatory data that adds little, if anything, to current understanding - unless
strong arguments for such repetition are made.
5) After the first read-through is done, the reviewers must go for the second read-through.
But before starting the second read-through, the reviewers must keep the following
things in mind:
 Do not rely solely upon inserting comments on the manuscript document - make
separate notes.
 Try to group similar concerns or praise together.
 If using a review program to note directly onto the manuscript, still try
grouping the concerns and praise in separate notes - it helps later.
 Note line numbers of text upon which your notes are based - this helps you find
items again and also aids those reading your review.
 Keep images, graphs and data tables in clear view - either print them off or have
them in view on a second computer monitor or window.
6) In the second read-through, just like the first one, reviewers must go through the whole
manuscripts or papers again and point out the remaining flaws and inconsistencies. As
they are reading through the manuscript for a second time, the reviewers need to keep
in mind the argument's construction, the clarity of the language and content. About the
argument’s construction, they should identify:
 Any places where the meaning is unclear or ambiguous
 Any factual errors
 Any invalid arguments
 You may also wish to consider:
 Does the title accurately reflect the subject of the paper?
 Does the abstract provide an accessible summary of the paper?
 Do the keywords accurately reflect the content?
 Is the paper an appropriate length?
 Are the key messages short, accurate and clear?
7) After the second read-through is completed, reviewers are supposed to check for
plagiarism both self and third-party. The refences or bibliography should be checked as
the authors are advised to cite all the references throughout the whole manuscript.
8) Soon after the whole review process is completed, the reviewers are supposed to
submit a report. If there is a formal report format, they must remember to follow it. If
they are following an informal report format, they must structure their report in three
sections: summary, major issues, minor issues.
A. Summary
 Give positive feedback first. Authors are more likely to read your review if
you do so. But do not overdo it if you will be recommending rejection.
 Briefly summarize what the paper is about and what the findings are.
 Try to put the findings of the paper into the context of the existing literature
and knowledge.
 Indicate the significance of the work and if it is novel or mainly confirmatory
 Indicate the work's strengths, its quality and completeness.
 State any major flaws or weaknesses and note any special considerations.
For example, if previously held theories are being overlooked.
 B. Major Issues
 Are there any major flaws? State what they are and what the severity of
their impact is on the paper.
 Has similar work already been published without the authors
acknowledging this?
 Are the authors presenting findings that challenge current thinking? Is the
evidence they present strong enough to prove their case? Have they cited all
the relevant work that would contradict their thinking and addressed it
appropriately?
 If major revisions are required, try to indicate clearly what they are.
 Are there any major presentational problems? Are figures & tables, language
and manuscript structure all clear enough for you to accurately assess the
work?
 Are there any ethical issues? If you are unsure it may be better to disclose
these in the confidential comments section.

C. Minor Issues
 Are there places where meaning is ambiguous? How can this be corrected?
 Are the correct references cited? If not, which should be cited instead/also?
Are citations excessive, limited, or biased?
 Are there any factual, numerical or unit errors? If so, what are they?
 Are all tables and figures appropriate, sufficient, and correctly labelled? If
not, say which are not.
9) Reviewers should check the preferences of individual journals as to where they want
review decisions to be stated. They should bear in mind that some journals will not
want the recommendation included in any comments to authors, as this can cause
editors difficulty later. Since there is editor in this conference, the reviewers are asked
to indicate their recommendations (e.g. accept, reject, revise, and resubmit, etc.) from
a fixed-choice list.
 Recommending Acceptance
If you are recommending acceptance, give details outlining why, and if there
are any areas that could be improved. Do not just give a short, cursory remark
such as 'great, accept'.
 Recommending Revision
Where improvements are needed, a recommendation for major or minor revision
is typical. You may also choose to state whether you opt in or out of the post-
revision review too. If recommending revision, state specific changes you feel
need to be made. The author can then reply to each point in turn. What can
reviewers do to help? "Be clear in their comments to the author which points are
absolutely critical if the paper is given an opportunity for revision." (Jonathon
Halbesleben, Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology).
 Recommending Rejection
If recommending rejection or major revision, state this clearly in your review.
 Reviewer Checklist
Journal Title :
Reviewer :

Evaluation Criteria 1 2 3 4 5 Comments

TITLE, ABSTRACT, AND INTRODUCTION

The title is relevant, precise
and reflects the overall
contents of the study.

The abstract is clear and

precise; consists of basic
information which includes
the purpose, issues,
methodology, and
significance of the study.

The abstract reflects the

overall content of the study.

Keywords are relevant and

appropriate.

The introduction section has a

clear statement demonstrating
the focus of the study. The
problem definition is stated
clearly. There is a brief, well-
articulated summary of
research literature that
substantiates the study.

The purposes, research

question(s), and/or
hypotheses appropriate to the
topic and area of study are
related clearly.

The significance of the study

is described in terms of:
a) Knowledge generation
b) Professional
application
c) Positive social change
Show appropriate preparation
and knowledge through the
background/review of
literature in the related area.
Comparison/contrast of
different viewpoints/different
research outcomes is made.

The content of the reviews is

drawn from acceptable peer-
reviewed journals or sound
academic journals and the
literature is reasonably recent.

METHOD
Clearly explains the research
design, sampling procedure
and instruments development.

The process by which the data

were generated, gathered, and
recorded is clearly described.

How the data will be analyzed

is articulated. Clearly
describes the software
program used to analyze the
data.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

Results are presented clearly
and analyzed appropriately.

The conclusions adequately

tie together the other elements
of the paper.

The paper identifies clearly

any implications for research,
practice and/or society.

The findings are clear, well-

grounded and thought out.

WRITING AND REFERENCING STYLE

The paper clearly presents its
case and is written with
correct grammar, punctuation,
spelling and sentence
structure.

Does not have over-reliance

on limited sources and in-text
citations are found in the
reference list.